Feminism 101- the creation of patriarchy

Just so we’re on the same page what is understood to be “natural” in this context?

I’m not at all ‘pained’ to see women doing their thing on their own terms and adventures should be embarked on by all people. Actually I could well do without rapists as well myself, as I’d prefer not to have to pull them off women in alleys in the middle of the night. Just in case you are not clear of my meaning NOT the fault of the woman who was minding her own business.

I don’t have a lot of academic research to back this up, but from personal observation is that we took what was supposed to be a complete human psyche and split it in two. We assigned half of human potential masculine and the other feminine. Then we compounded the sin by denigrating the feminine aspect.

In truth there is no human being alive that would not benefit from a healthy expression of either. Ambition and assertiveness to pick a few at random from the masculine or nurturing and compassion from the feminine.

For me the case (intellectually at least) was resolved thousands of years ago with Socrates, who argued that whatever differences existed between men and women they were so negligible that they should by no means represent any sort of barrier to women accessing the exact same opportunities and liberty as men.

One area where I think we have come particularly unstuck is through the objectification of women which actually leads to distinct downsides for men, but bear with me I’ll get to that in a moment. Women as objects either for sexual gratification, childbearing or what amounts to free labour does confer upon women relative to men an intrinsic value within society. However this comes with the distinct downside of a theft of agency, as objects do not have free will.

Men have little intrinsic value relative to women, but we do have greater agency. So men go out make their mark on the world and those who succeed accrue the resources and power. There is a resentment on all sides particularly from women from the obvious lack of agency, but also from men who have failed to marshal their agency into success as from their point of view the intrinsic value of women as objects looks like a far cushier proposition as having no intrinsic value as it leads to being cannon fodder in wars or disposable labour in industry.

I’m also for what it’s worth not trying to lay out a case of men having it worse, as actually I think that’s sort of a fallacious position to look at this from. There are layers with more men at the absolute top (the patriarchs) and men who failed to marshal their agency at the bottom, and interwoven throughout most of the stratas is the ever present resentment of the feminine.

This is obviously a very skeletal analysis with many holes which I do not intend to stand in opposition to what’s been been said already I’m just tossing a few observations in. I do think we need to perhaps level out agency and value across humanity. All people should have value, but never as objects and all people should have agency.

The diffiulty being the assumption that the rule is made to benefit men rather than women. It doesn't allow for an unbiased analysis.

The difficulty with this analysis is that inheritance laws that demand legitimacy are also advantageous to the wife, often more so than the husband.

@BjornAgain81

Actually the latest YouGov poll said 34% of women identify themselves as a feminist

I'm just musing about why men wouldn't make provisions for whore's children in law

I would assume that it's because:

• They creates the institution of marriage (to a virgin) for the reasons you've outlined already

• They added a moral dimension to this to further persuade women to be virgins until marriage and then faithful so that they knew any children were theirs

• Any mistress is clearly not playing by these rules and is seen as a whore

• She's not under the watchful eye of a husband and any children she has cannot he assumed to definitely be his as she is a 'whore' and probably assumed to be sleeping with numerous men.

Therefore 'bastard' children don't get inheritance because of the risk of passing it down to someone else's child.

In the course of a trial, there would be other evidence presented to the jury that would either support or contradict the defense's version of events.

From what I read, nearly all cases where this defense is put forward, the juries are typically unconvinced and return a guilty verdict to murder.

You could be hanged up until the 1950s for murder. After the abolition of capital punishment, the law was changed to make a life sentence mandatory. At the same time, so called 'partial defences' such as provocation and diminished responsibility were introduced to reduce the offence of murder to that of manslaughter. Although manslaughter can carry a life sentence, the Judge has the discretion to impose a lighter sentence.

Basically if you kill some one, then the crime you commit is either murder or manslaughter depending on your intention

I think you get an average of 4 years in jail for murdering your wife

That sounds more like the sentence for manslaughter. In the UK the only sentence for murder is life. Although I think that such prisoner must serve a 'tariff' and then many are released on licence - but any subsequent re-offending (for any offence) and they're liable to be returned to custody.

You can make a lot of good arguments about problems with treatment of domestic violence. But its no reason to be snippy if you mistakenly say something and someone points out its non-factual. You've been making a lot of definitive statements.

Oh I see what you did, misquoted me out of context so it looked like I was saying wife murder wasn't a crime. Annoying.

She quoted your whole post, you said wife murder wasn't considered a crime until recently.

Don't American boys have to sign up for the military draft to get state funded college education, whilst girls get it no questions asked? That's not great for men who could theoretically end up getting shot at in some middle eastern hellhole against their will.

No, I don't think this is true. The military is one way to access free higher ed in the US, for boys and girls. State schools arrangements seem to vary a lot according to which state you are in but most aren't free for boys or girls.